BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Routine posttreatment surveillance is recommended after adjuvant radiotherapy for stage I seminoma. However, systematic studies on the value of follow-up in these patients are missing. This report addresses the efficiency of routine follow-up in stage I seminoma with particular reference to the mode of detection of relapse and the costs of posttreatment screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All follow-up investigations of a prospectively followed cohort of 675 patients with stage I seminoma treated with PA radiotherapy were analyzed with respect to the first indications of relapse, patterns of recurrence, risk factors of relapse, and cost-efficiency of the different technical examinations of the follow-up schedule over a 10-year period. RESULTS: With a median time to follow-up of 61 months, recurrence was diagnosed by symptoms or physical examination in 14 out of 26 relapsing patients. Among the technical follow-up investigations abdominopelvic imaging had the highest detection rate for relapse, while thoracic imaging and marker analysis were inefficient. Abdominal sonography had the highest cost-efficiency of all technical follow-up investigations, while computed tomography (CT) scans were responsible for approximately 60% of all costs. The authors failed to identify risk factors predictive of relapse after adjuvant irradiation. CONCLUSION: Routine technical investigations during follow-up after PA radiotherapy for stage I seminoma yield only a low detection rate of relapse from cancer. The data presented here provide no evidence for the value of technical follow-up beyond the 3rd year after treatment or routine screening of the chest. Thorough physical examination of the patients should be encouraged. Patients should be informed about potential symptoms indicative of recurrence. Restrictive use of abdominopelvic CT scans will reduce exposure to ionizing radiation and considerably increase the cost-efficiency of follow-up.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Routine posttreatment surveillance is recommended after adjuvant radiotherapy for stage I seminoma. However, systematic studies on the value of follow-up in these patients are missing. This report addresses the efficiency of routine follow-up in stage I seminoma with particular reference to the mode of detection of relapse and the costs of posttreatment screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All follow-up investigations of a prospectively followed cohort of 675 patients with stage I seminoma treated with PA radiotherapy were analyzed with respect to the first indications of relapse, patterns of recurrence, risk factors of relapse, and cost-efficiency of the different technical examinations of the follow-up schedule over a 10-year period. RESULTS: With a median time to follow-up of 61 months, recurrence was diagnosed by symptoms or physical examination in 14 out of 26 relapsing patients. Among the technical follow-up investigations abdominopelvic imaging had the highest detection rate for relapse, while thoracic imaging and marker analysis were inefficient. Abdominal sonography had the highest cost-efficiency of all technical follow-up investigations, while computed tomography (CT) scans were responsible for approximately 60% of all costs. The authors failed to identify risk factors predictive of relapse after adjuvant irradiation. CONCLUSION: Routine technical investigations during follow-up after PA radiotherapy for stage I seminoma yield only a low detection rate of relapse from cancer. The data presented here provide no evidence for the value of technical follow-up beyond the 3rd year after treatment or routine screening of the chest. Thorough physical examination of the patients should be encouraged. Patients should be informed about potential symptoms indicative of recurrence. Restrictive use of abdominopelvic CT scans will reduce exposure to ionizing radiation and considerably increase the cost-efficiency of follow-up.
Authors: L B Travis; R E Curtis; H Storm; P Hall; E Holowaty; F E Van Leeuwen; B A Kohler; E Pukkala; C F Lynch; M Andersson; K Bergfeldt; E A Clarke; T Wiklund; G Stoter; M Gospodarowicz; J Sturgeon; J F Fraumeni; J D Boice Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1997-10-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: K Sultanem; L Souhami; V Benk; J P Bahary; T Roman; G Shenouda; C Freeman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1998-01-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jorge Aparicio; José R Germà; Xavier García del Muro; Pablo Maroto; José A Arranz; Alberto Sáenz; Agustín Barnadas; Joan Dorca; Josep Gumà; David Olmos; Romá Bastús; Joan Carles; Daniel Almenar; Miguel Sánchez; Luis Paz-Ares; Juan J Satrústegui; Begoña Mellado; Ana Balil; Marta López-Brea; Alfredo Sánchez Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Susanne Krege; Jörg Beyer; Rainer Souchon; Peter Albers; Walter Albrecht; Ferran Algaba; Michael Bamberg; István Bodrogi; Carsten Bokemeyer; Eva Cavallin-Ståhl; Johannes Classen; Christoph Clemm; Gabriella Cohn-Cedermark; Stéphane Culine; Gedske Daugaard; Pieter H M De Mulder; Maria De Santis; Maike de Wit; Ronald de Wit; Hans Günter Derigs; Klaus-Peter Dieckmann; Annette Dieing; Jean-Pierre Droz; Martin Fenner; Karim Fizazi; Aude Flechon; Sophie D Fosså; Xavier Garcia del Muro; Thomas Gauler; Lajos Geczi; Arthur Gerl; Jose Ramon Germa-Lluch; Silke Gillessen; Jörg T Hartmann; Michael Hartmann; Axel Heidenreich; Wolfgang Hoeltl; Alan Horwich; Robert Huddart; Michael Jewett; Johnathan Joffe; William G Jones; László Kisbenedek; Olbjørn Klepp; Sabine Kliesch; Kai Uwe Koehrmann; Christian Kollmannsberger; Markus Kuczyk; Pilar Laguna; Oscar Leiva Galvis; Volker Loy; Malcolm D Mason; Graham M Mead; Rolf Mueller; Craig Nichols; Nicola Nicolai; Tim Oliver; Dalibor Ondrus; Gosse O N Oosterhof; Luis Paz Ares; Giorgio Pizzocaro; Jörg Pont; Tobias Pottek; Tom Powles; Oliver Rick; Giovanni Rosti; Roberto Salvioni; Jutta Scheiderbauer; Hans-Ulrich Schmelz; Heinz Schmidberger; Hans-Joachim Schmoll; Mark Schrader; Felix Sedlmayer; Niels E Skakkebaek; Aslam Sohaib; Sergei Tjulandin; Padraig Warde; Stefan Weinknecht; Lothar Weissbach; Christian Wittekind; Eva Winter; Lori Wood; Hans von der Maase Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-12-26 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: J Classen; H Schmidberger; C Meisner; C Winkler; J Dunst; R Souchon; L Weissbach; V Budach; W Alberti; M Bamberg Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2004-06-14 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Hester Lieng; Padraig Warde; Philippe Bedard; Robert J Hamilton; Aaron R Hansen; Michael A S Jewett; Martin O'malley; Joan Sweet; Peter Chung Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Johannes Classen; Rainer Souchon; Thomas Hehr; Michael Hartmann; Jörg T Hartmann; Michael Bamberg Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08-14 Impact factor: 4.553